Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1033 (RAJ)

Nand Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2003-07-24

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
Honble GARG, J.–This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 10.8.1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Gram Sewak-cum-Secretary. (2). The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- The respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee, Sri Ganganagar by publishing an advertisement in newspapers invited applications for filling up 118 posts of Gram Sewak-cum-Secretary in various Gram Panchayats. The applications were to be submitted in the prescribed proforma. According to the petitioner, the said advertisement was issued most probably in the month of July/August, 1996. It was mentioned in the said advertisement that out of 118 posts, 60 posts shall be for general category, 25 for OBC category, 19 for Scheduled Castes category and 13 for Scheduled Tribes category. The further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the above advertisement, he submitted his application in the prescribed proforma alongwith requisite documents and he was allotted roll No. 5359. The further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, a written examination of the candidates was taken and thereafter, a merit list was prepared and the candidates were called for interview and through letter Annex. 1 dated 20.12.1996, the petitioner was also called for interview on 2.1.1997 and he appeared for interview on 2.1.1997 before the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee. The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee prepared a final select list of 118 candidates and also prepared a waiting list and in the waiting list of OBC candidates, the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 1. A copy of the waiting list of OBC category is marked as Annex. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee gave appointments to 118 candidates as Gram Sewak and sent them to different Gram Panchayats for assuming charge. A copy of the waiting list of OBC category is marked as Annex. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee gave appointments to 118 candidates as Gram Sewak and sent them to different Gram Panchayats for assuming charge. The further case of the petitioner is that out of 118 candidates, who were selected and given appointments, only 114 candidates joined, as a result of which, 4 posts remained vacant and out of that 4 posts, 2 posts belonged to general category; one post belonged to OBC category and the remaining one post belonged to Scheduled Caste category and for that, the letters of respondent No. 2 dated 17.6.1997 and 4.8.1997 (Annex. 5 and Annex. 6 respectively) may be referred to. The further case of the petitioner is that he made representation on 1.6.1998 to the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee stating therein that since one post became vacant in OBC category and since he stood first in the waiting list of OBC category, therefore, he may be given appointment against the said one vacant post of OBC category. A copy of the said representation dated 1.6.1998 is marked as Annex.3. The further case of the petitioner is that one Gurender Singh, who stood at serial No. 1 in the waiting list of general category, was also given appointment against the vacant post of general category. According to the petitioner, Gurender Singh filed representation for appointment in May, 1997 and he also filed writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 80/98 and he was given provisional appointment as per directions of this Court. The further case of the petitioner is that his case also stands on the same footing as that of Gurender Singh. But, since the petitioner was not given appointment, hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. The main case of the petitioner is that since one of the candidates belonging to OBC category did not join duties, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have given appointment to the petitioner against the said vacant post of OBC category as the petitioner stood at serial No. 1 in the waiting list of OBC category and not giving of appointment to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that the select list was prepared on 25.1.1997 and the petitioner submitted the representation Annex. 3 on 1.6.1998, but the term of that select list had already expired prior to 1.6.1998 and thus, the petitioner had no right whatsoever to ask for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement issued in 1996. The further case of the respondents is that the case of the petitioner does not stand on the same footing as that of Gurender Singh because Gurender Singh filed writ petition before this Court prior to expiry of period of select list, whereas the petitioner approached this Court after a long delay. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. (3). I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. (4). There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner is seeking appointment in pursuance of the advertisement which was issued in the month of July-Aug. 1996. (5). There is also no dispute on the point that a select list of 118 candidates was prepared on 25.1.1997. (6). There is also no dispute on th4e point that in the waiting list of OBC category, the petitioner stood at serial No. 1. (7). There is also no dispute on the point that out of 118 candidates, who were selected and given appointment, one person belonging to OBC category did not join. (8). There is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner submitted representation for appointment for the first time on 1.6.1998 and the same is Annex. 3. (9). There is also no dispute on the point that the said Gurender Singh filed representation in May, 1997. (10). There is also no dispute on the point that when the petitioner submitted his representation Annex. 3 on 1.6.1998, the term of select list had already expired. (11). The question for consideration is whether in the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to any relief or not or whether the case of the respondents that since the term of select list had already expired, therefore, the petitioner had no right whatsoever to seek appointment in pursuance of the advertisement issued in 1996 especially when before filing representation Annex. 3 dated 1.6.1998 by the petitioner, the term of select list had already expired, should be accepted or not. (12). The case of the petitioner is governed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Rules of 1996) and Rule 274 of the Rules of 1996 provides for preparation of a merit list by the Committee and the proviso (ii) of Rule 274 (1) of the Rules of 1996 provides that the merit list of candidates so prepared shall remain valid for a period of one year and after expiry of such period, it will be deemed to have lapsed. (13). As per the case of the respondents, the merit/select list was prepared on 25.1.1997 and as per proviso (ii) of Rule 274 (i) of the Rules of 1996, it shall remain valid for a period of one year i.e. upto 25.1.1998 and thus, the term of the select list had already expired before the petitioner submitted his representation Annex. 3 dated 1.6.1998. (14). The Honble Supreme Court in State of UP and Ors. vs. Harish Chandra and Ors. (1), has observed that candidates seeking appointment after expiry of period of select list had no right. (15). In Rajendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2), a Division Bench of this Court observed that a finality is to be attached to the selection process. It cannot be allowed to remain open and continuing. If that be so, rights of candidates who acquire eligibility subsequently will be adversely affected and that will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Selection process has a life and it cannot be extended except as permitted by relevant service Rules. (16). In State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Md. Kalimuddin & Ors. (3), the Honble Supreme Court held that since Rule provides that select list shall be valid for one year from the date of approval of project by Select Committee, therefore, continuance of list beyond one year is illegal and even the High Court cannot continue list beyond one year unless its constitutional validity is challenged. (17). Kalimuddin & Ors. (3), the Honble Supreme Court held that since Rule provides that select list shall be valid for one year from the date of approval of project by Select Committee, therefore, continuance of list beyond one year is illegal and even the High Court cannot continue list beyond one year unless its constitutional validity is challenged. (17). In M.P. Electricity Board vs. Virendra Kumar Sharma (4), it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that denial of appointment to a selectee of such list after expiry of the panel on the basis of the said circular did not call for interference by the High Court. The Honble Supreme Court further observed that rational behind providing of validity/currency of panel for a particular period is to consider new candidates who may be better or more qualified. (18). In J. Ashok Kumar vs. State of A.P. and Ors. (5), the Honble Supreme Court observed that selection having already been over and the selected candidates having been appointed, no relief could be granted to the rest candidates. (19). This Court in Tara Chand Bhati vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (6), has observed that the panel of selected candidates cannot be valid for indefinite period. Moreover, impaneled candidates in any event cannot have a right against future vacancies. On waiting list (20). On waiting list, the Honble Supreme Court in Sanjay Bhattacharjee vs. Union of India (7), observed that if the name of the candidate has appeared in the waiting list, it does not confer any right of appointment on him and fresh recruitment can therefore be resorted to without appointing such candidate. (21). It is now well settled by series of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court that the empanelment of the candidate in the select list confers no right on the candidates to appointment on account of being so empanelled. What to talk of reserve list, even a person, whose name is found in select list, had no right of appointment. (22). Thus, it can be concluded that where the Rule specially provides that select list would be lapsed after a period of one year, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot give direction to make appointment after the expiry of period of select list. (23). Furthermore, a select list once made does not exist forever. (22). Thus, it can be concluded that where the Rule specially provides that select list would be lapsed after a period of one year, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot give direction to make appointment after the expiry of period of select list. (23). Furthermore, a select list once made does not exist forever. It gets exhausted on completion of the selection process which was held pursuant to a particular advertisement or invitation. In other words, it can be said that the life of a select list will get exhausted if the requisite candidates are selected for the specified vacancies and appointments made accordingly or if not so selected or appointed then on the expiry of the period prescribed. If the life has expired then the Court cannot direct such a non-existent list to continue. (24). Keeping the above law in mind, if the case of the present petitioner is examined, it has no merit at all. (25). In the present case, the select list was prepared on 25.1.1997 and proviso (ii) of Rule 274 (1) of the Rules of 1996 clearly provides that the life of select list would be one year and thus, the life of select list had expired on 25.1.1998 and when the life of select list had already expired, therefore, the petitioner had no right whatsoever to seek appointment on the basis of waiting list and apart from this, the petitioner made representation through Annex. 3 on 1.6.1998 and at that time, the period of select list had already expired. (26). So far as the case of Gurender Singh is concerned, that case can be distinguished from the facts of the present case as in that case, the representation was made before the expiry of period of select list, while in the present case, the representation was filed by the petitioner through Annex. 3 on 1.6.1998 i.e. after expiry of period of select list. (27). So far as the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Purushottam vs. Chairman, M.S.E.B. and Anr. (8), where it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that duly selected candidate could not be denied appointment on the pretext that panels term had expired, is concerned, that proposition is altogether different from the position of law of the present case. (8), where it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that duly selected candidate could not be denied appointment on the pretext that panels term had expired, is concerned, that proposition is altogether different from the position of law of the present case. It is made clear that if a duly selected candidate was not given appointment because of some suspicion or quarries and that suspicion becomes over after the expiry of term of panel, in such a situation, in the case of Purushottam (supra), the Honble Supreme Court observed that the expiry of term of panel would not come in way for appointment of such candidate. This is not the position in the present case. Therefore, the law laid down in the case of Purushottam (supra), would not be helpful to the petitioner. (28). For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thus, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. No order as to costs.